Courts prioritize fairness and copyright fundamental rights even though respecting the autonomy of educational institutions. To the aforesaid proposition, we have been guided through the decision from the Supreme Court while in the case of Khyber Medical University and others v. Aimal Khan and others, PLD 2022 Supreme Court 92. nine. The aforesaid exceptions are missing within the present case. In these types of circumstances, this petition is found being not maintainable which is dismissed accordingly with pending application (s). Read more

93 . Const. P. 642/2023 (D.B.) Fatima Noor V/S Dow University of Health Science and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi Coming for the main case, It's also a well-established proposition of law that when an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court is concerned with determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power, and authority to succeed in a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules nor proof of the fact or evidence while in the Stricto-Sensu, apply to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and summary obtain support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, however, that is issue for the procedure provided under the relevant rules and not otherwise, for your reason that the Court in its power of judicial review does not work as appellate authority to re-recognize the evidence and to arrive at its independent findings on the evidence.

Case legislation is specific on the jurisdiction in which it had been rendered. For example, a ruling inside a California appellate court would not commonly be used in deciding a case in Oklahoma.

Statutory laws are People created by legislative bodies, which include Congress at both the federal and state levels. Whilst this style of law strives to form our society, giving rules and guidelines, it would be not possible for almost any legislative body to anticipate all situations and legal issues.

R.O, Office, Gujranwala along with the police officials did not inform him that the identification parade from the accused hasn't been conducted nevertheless. In the instant case, now the accused tried to consider advantage of the program aired by SAMAA News, wherein the image from the petitioner was commonly circulated. The police should not have exposed the identity with the accused through electronic media. The law lends assurance to the accused that the identity should not be subjected to the witnesses, particularly for the witness to identify the accused before the Magistrate. The C.P.O, Gujranwala present in court, stated that the Investigating Officer place a mask over the accused to conceal their identity and produced images. In addition to, the images shown to the media reveal that a mask wasn't placed over the accused to hide his identity until he was place up for an identification parade. Making photos in the accused publically, either by showing the same to your witness or by publicizing the same in almost any newspaper or system, would create doubt within the proceedings on the identification parade. The Investigating Officer has to make certain that there is not any opportunity with the witness to begin to see the accused before going for the identification parade. The accused should not be shown to your witness in person or through any other mode, i.e., photograph, video-graph, or even the push or electronic media. Provided the reasons elaborated above, the case against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons the instant suit is dismissed with no order regarding cost. Office to prepare decree in the above mentioned terms. Read more

Retribution: Section 302 PPC also serves the purpose of retribution, where society seeks justice with the loss of the life. It allows the legal system to impose a proportional punishment to the offender, making sure They are really held accountable for their actions.

six.  Mere involvement within a heinous offence is not any ground for refusing bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for your concession of bail. The petitioner namely Bhoora was arrested in this case on 08.05.2018, due to the fact then he is guiding the bars, He's previous non-convict, never involved in any case, investigation qua him is complete, his person is no more expected for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration would not provide any beneficial purpose at this stage.

nine.  Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court.

I)       The above referred case FIR, for your murder of deceased namely Muhammad Sajjad, was registered to the complaint of Muhammad Sharif son of Ghulam Farid that's father from the petitioner and According to Tale of FIR, the petitioner can be an eyewkness in the incidence.

How much sway case legislation holds could fluctuate by jurisdiction, and by the precise circumstances on the current case. To discover this concept, look at the following case legislation definition.

Whoever, with the intention of causing death OR with the intention of causing bodily injury to your person, by performing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is probably going to cause death, or with the knowledge that his act is so imminently hazardous that it must in all chance cause death, causes the death from the these types of person, is claimed to commit qatl-i-amd/murder”

13309-B of 2010 to generally be weak types of evidence plus the evidentiary value whereof would be observed at the time from the trial. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and, Consequently, confirmed custody from the petitioner in jail is click here unlikely to serve any advantageous purpose at this stage.”

The necessary analysis (called ratio decidendi), then constitutes a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary on the determination from the current case are called obiter dicta, which constitute persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil legislation jurisdictions are generally shorter, referring only to statutes.[four]